SINGAPOREANS can take their pick of not just one but two oceanariums, if a second tourism proposal by the developer behind the Singapore Flyer takes off at Marina Bay.
.
Mr Peter Purcell, managing director of Orient and Pacific Group, is waiting anxiously for the official nod to his water-based project.
.
"Within 24 hours after signing the deal for the Singapore Flyer in September 2005, I made it known to the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) that our group was prepared to make a similar, or even larger, investment into the tourism sector of Singapore," Mr Purcell told Today.
.
His group's proposed Singapore Oceanarium  to be built at a cost of $300 million excluding land price  will feature an Antarctic tank with swimming penguins, apart from gallons of water and sea mammals. If the go-ahead is given, it will be up and running in two years' time.
.
Since late last year, the consortium of local and foreign investors  who, except Mr Purcell, do not have a stake in the Singapore Flyer  has viewed four sites in Marina Bay put up by the authorities.
.
In fact, funding sources have already been identified. The consortium has also made presentations to agencies such as the STB, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Economic Development Board, the National Parks Board and the Public Utilities Board as recently as a few weeks ago.
.
Parties involved in the proposal include Japanese firms associated with the aquariums in Osaka, Kamogawa and Okinawa. Universities in Australia and Japan were also consulted on animal care and ethics issues, on top of a Memorandum of Understanding already inked with the National University of Singapore to develop a marine biology campus.
.
"It is a destination product. We have demonstrated to the Singapore Government that something of this magnitude and uniqueness has never been done before. It's a one-off type of exercise," he said.
.
Yet, any decision-making has been put on hold for several months now. Mr Purcell suspects that it has to do with the awarding of the Sentosa integrated resort (IR) site.
.
"(I think the Government) didn't want to see a situation where what we are planning for would potentially clash with the IR at Sentosa," he said. "So, whatever happens on Sentosa is going to have a bearing on our plans," Mr Purcell added.
.
The two IR frontrunners  Kerzner CapitaLand and Genting  each boast to have the world's largest oceanarium, with 24 million and 20 million gallons of water, respectively. US-based Eighth Wonder has a marine research centre and an aquarium.
.
As the clock ticks on for the IR bidders, so too, seems the patience of the Singapore Oceanarium consortium.
.
Mr Purcell has received offers by some governments in Asia to relocate the water-based attraction. For now, he has decided to hold out until the Sentosa IR winner is announced, likely this week.
.
Mr Purcell said: "We're ready, willing and able to go into this project. We've had tremendous support from certain parts of the Singapore Government, which has kept our interest in maintaining dialogue with them."
.
But what if its advances are eventually turned down? "Then we'd take it to another country," he said.
Singapore Flyer's developer awaits approval of proposed $300-million oceanarium

Based on their articles, I can safely deduce the following: That Mr Lee (like other concerned groups) is not in favour of having an oceanarium as part of the integrated resort (IR) for environmental reasons, and that Mr Chia believes that "only by making Singapore very attractive to travellers can this tourism business be assured".

Something is definitely missing here. What about a compromise? Is it possible to bring these two together somehow? Can a win-win solution be achieved?

I have minimal knowledge on environmentalism and economic development, but perhaps the relevant parties/authorities could consider studying the feasibility of these propositions:

Instead of having an oceanarium (which I personally do not think as unique or one of a kind, especially if two out of three bidders are proposing it at once), replace it with:

1) An underwater exploration of marine life, where visitors will travel in a subsea transporter surrounding Sentosa or even around Singapore. You could even adopt the concept of an underwater cruise liner to capture a larger market. I might be wrong, but as far as I know, no one's ever done this.

2) A vertical, progressive moving underwater observatory with a 360° view all around. Basically, it's very much like the Carlsberg Sky Tower except that it is underwater. This idea might not be original but there are so few of them in the world and I'm sure there's still space for further enhancements to this idea.

If you noticed, the above propositions have one thing in common: No animal needs to be captured, or exploited. The idea here is to allow visitors to experience, appreciate and possibly educate them on the marine eco-system surrounding Sentosa and within Singapore waters in its natural glory.

At the same time, these ideas have the potential to generate substantial revenue for the developers and inevitably, for Singapore.

Has a balance been struck here? I'd like to think so, but I'll leave it to the executives who call the shots to decide.

Obviously, there are going to be major challenges developing them, but let's think of it this way: If man can travel to the moon and back, I don't see why we can't make an underwater observatory or cruise.

THE idea of an underwater tower or viewing point in Singapore waters makes a welcome change from the faux-environmentally-concerned notion of building oceanariums on Sentosa.

There's just one problem: Unlike typical towers built on land, where you can see for miles and miles around on a clear day, with an observatory (or cruise liner) in the sea we are held entirely at the mercy of underwater visibility.

And as any diver worth his salt will tell you, the visibility in Singapore's waters isn't much to speak of. You could go scuba diving and be lucky to see your dive buddy not a metre away, on a bad day.

This all goes back to environmentalism. Why are Singapore's waters so murky? Why are the corals covered with a not-so-fine layer of silt? Why doesn't the Republic attract visitors here to scuba dive, unlike nearby islands such as Malaysia's Tioman or Sipadan?

The answer, in its simplest form, is: Development. Too much construction near the seas, with erosion and run-off turning our waters the shade of teh peng (iced milk tea). Too much shipping traffic — good for the economy, a burden on our underwater ecosystem.

Neither would building a tower or similar construct help the situation.

I would love the chance to introduce my non-diving friends to Singapore's waters without their having to strap on a full set of dive gear. It definitely would be a more realistic experience than oceanariums, with their imported denizens.

But until the waters are a more inviting, crystalline shade of blue — and this won't happen without decades of environmental policing to bring about the regrowth of the island's undersea wealth — the idea of an observation tower off Sentosa's shore ... well, it just doesn't hold water.

Based on their articles, I can safely deduce the following: That Mr Lee (like other concerned groups) is not in favour of having an oceanarium as part of the integrated resort (IR) for environmental reasons, and that Mr Chia believes that "only by making Singapore very attractive to travellers can this tourism business be assured".

Something is definitely missing here. What about a compromise? Is it possible to bring these two together somehow? Can a win-win solution be achieved?

I have minimal knowledge on environmentalism and economic development, but perhaps the relevant parties/authorities could consider studying the feasibility of these propositions:

Instead of having an oceanarium (which I personally do not think as unique or one of a kind, especially if two out of three bidders are proposing it at once), replace it with:

1) An underwater exploration of marine life, where visitors will travel in a subsea transporter surrounding Sentosa or even around Singapore. You could even adopt the concept of an underwater cruise liner to capture a larger market. I might be wrong, but as far as I know, no one's ever done this.

2) A vertical, progressive moving underwater observatory with a 360° view all around. Basically, it's very much like the Carlsberg Sky Tower except that it is underwater. This idea might not be original but there are so few of them in the world and I'm sure there's still space for further enhancements to this idea.

If you noticed, the above propositions have one thing in common: No animal needs to be captured, or exploited. The idea here is to allow visitors to experience, appreciate and possibly educate them on the marine eco-system surrounding Sentosa and within Singapore waters in its natural glory.

At the same time, these ideas have the potential to generate substantial revenue for the developers and inevitably, for Singapore.

Has a balance been struck here? I'd like to think so, but I'll leave it to the executives who call the shots to decide.

Obviously, there are going to be major challenges developing them, but let's think of it this way: If man can travel to the moon and back, I don't see why we can't make an underwater observatory or cruise.

THE idea of an underwater tower or viewing point in Singapore waters makes a welcome change from the faux-environmentally-concerned notion of building oceanariums on Sentosa.

There's just one problem: Unlike typical towers built on land, where you can see for miles and miles around on a clear day, with an observatory (or cruise liner) in the sea we are held entirely at the mercy of underwater visibility.

And as any diver worth his salt will tell you, the visibility in Singapore's waters isn't much to speak of. You could go scuba diving and be lucky to see your dive buddy not a metre away, on a bad day.

This all goes back to environmentalism. Why are Singapore's waters so murky? Why are the corals covered with a not-so-fine layer of silt? Why doesn't the Republic attract visitors here to scuba dive, unlike nearby islands such as Malaysia's Tioman or Sipadan?

The answer, in its simplest form, is: Development. Too much construction near the seas, with erosion and run-off turning our waters the shade of teh peng (iced milk tea). Too much shipping traffic  good for the economy, a burden on our underwater ecosystem.

Neither would building a tower or similar construct help the situation.

I would love the chance to introduce my non-diving friends to Singapore's waters without their having to strap on a full set of dive gear. It definitely would be a more realistic experience than oceanariums, with their imported denizens.

But until the waters are a more inviting, crystalline shade of blue  and this won't happen without decades of environmental policing to bring about the regrowth of the island's undersea wealth  the idea of an observation tower off Sentosa's shore ... well, it just doesn't hold water.

I think we can give up on Singapore ever being a decent dive centre. There's only one or two spots worth seeing and then it's small and under par compared to many sites around the world.

Unfortunately Singapore is a port first and foremost, not a tranquil tropical island for beach lovers.

Singapore needs to build some sort of artificial aquarium / oceanarium, it has no choice. However, looking at how this country does the zoo, the bird park ... how the singapore flyer is combined with greenery to make it feel 'tropical'.... i think there is plenty of scope to maybe not make something unique, but to certainly make it one of the best, if not the best.

However, having been to many such tourist attractions around the world, what is wrong with the one that exists already on Sentosa? WHY are the fish so sick, so unhealthy in comparison to other aquariums around the world?!

I'm not sure if the landmark site on marina bay is going to be set up as an aquarium etc but i hope not, that site deserves something more than that.... what, I do not know, but if they do build an oceanarium, i hope it's either with the IR or further out, nearer the singapore flyer.

At least two, it was suggested yesterday, placing in doubt the construction of a third that is still on the drawing board.

The comforting news for Sentosa's Underwater World was that it stands a decent chance of survival against the world's biggest oceanarium to be built as part of the new integrated resort.

But the future of the $300 million oceanarium in the works for Marina South is now uncertain.

Underwater World - now the only marine tourist attraction in Singapore - will take a direct hit from the new Resorts World oceanarium when it opens in 2010, together with a Universal Studios theme park and other attractions.

Asked if there would be room for Underwater World, Sentosa Leisure Group chief executive Darrell Metzger said: 'History has shown that wherever a Universal Studios or a Disney project is, there are dozens and dozens of other attractions that start popping up around them.

'And they will all do well if they are well run and have high quality.'

However, plans may have to be reconsidered for the Marina South oceanarium, planned by the same management behind the Singapore Flyer, the giant observation wheel at Marina Bay.

The Orient and Pacific Group was hoping to open its oceanarium in two years and has surveyed four sites.

Yesterday, the Singapore Tourism Board's chief executive Lim Neo Chian said the board had told the consortium of local and foreign investors to wait for the awarding of the Sentosa resort.

Mr Lim said: 'It's now up to the company to reassess. STB will continue to dialogue with them to see if they still want to proceed and what are the merits of the project.'

On Saturday, one day after the Sentosa integrated resort (IR) winner was announced, the people behind the proposed Singapore Oceanarium submitted a letter to the authorities.

In an email to the Economic Development Board and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), the consortium of local and foreign investors reiterated its interest to develop a $300-million oceanarium at Marina Bay.

The project has not been given the official go-ahead despite months of talks, supposedly due to the Sentosa IR race.

Now that the IR winner has been unveiled, Mr Peter Purcell, managing director of the Orient and Pacific Group, which has a stake in the Singapore Flyer, wants an answer — quick.

He argued that comparing his proposal to the existing Underwater World and Genting's oceanarium plans — all at Sentosa — is like "comparing chalk and cheese".

"We believe there is room for all because each facility will offer the public something quite different. Marina Bay and Sentosa have a different level of appeal and 'catchment' area of local and foreign visitors," he told Today.

He added that his facility — with 30,000 tonnes of water — will be "as large or larger" than those proposed elsewhere.

Yet, there are similarities in the planned Singapore Oceanarium and Genting's Quest Marine Life Park, which will house 700,000 marine creatures in a 30-million-litre lagoon. For instance, both are playing the education card.

The Singapore Oceanarium — which counts Mitsubishi Corporation and the Financial Advisors Standard Bank as partners — hopes to create an education, conservation and research centre.

It has roped in institutions such as the National University of Singapore's Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research and Tropical Marine Science Institute, as well as Australia's James Cook University and US-based Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

On its part, Genting plans to allocate up to $30 million a year for internships and outreach programmes. It also intends to place 20 or more postgraduate students from Singapore in research fellowships with eminent marine biologists.

Last Friday, STB chief executive Lim Neo Chian said the company has to "re-assess" its bid. The STB will continue to discuss with them to see if they still want to proceed and what the merits of the project are, Mr Lim said.

But Mr Purcell believes his proposal has an iconic building that would draw tourists. He said: "The architecture of the Singapore Oceanarium alone will draw many visitors, like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. We believe that (architecture as a factor to woo tourists) was not the case with the Sentosa proposal because of the somewhat obscured (location) of Sentosa island."

There are at least two attractions — a Dolphin Habitat and an Antarctic display — in the pipeline, should the project get the green light.

The planned Dolphin Habitat is not a traditional "circus" venue, but a sheltered research environment with discrete public viewing areas. However, other exhibits would have to "depend somewhat on Genting's plans", Mr Purcell added.

At the end of the day, having two aquatic facilities should be seen as an opportunity rather than a crisis, he said.

"We would like to co-operate with Genting to ensure that the public can enjoy diversity, not replication," he added.

When contacted, a Genting spokesperson said it is "premature" to comment on the proposed Singapore Oceanarium. "We do not have enough details at this point."